Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Following nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, Brigadier General Schwalier was scheduled to be appointed to major general in 1997. His appointment was delayed and the President later chose not to appoint him, 10 U.S.C. 624(c). Schwalier argued that he was appointed by operation of law after the delay of his appointment expired and before the President’s decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court finding that the appointment process for senior military officers does not allow for automatic appointments, and a President’s decision not to appoint an officer is unreviewable. The Air Force and the Department of Defense did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by not retroactively appointing Schwalier. View "Schwalier v. Hagel" on Justia Law

Hopper was hired by the Social Security Administration, which requested that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conduct a background investigation. Fifteen months later, OPM challenged his application. Asked whether, during the past five years, he had been fired from any job, Hopper responded “no.” OPM alleged that Hopper had been fired from two positions with different companies and that, in response to a question requesting a list of all employment for the past five years, Hopper failed to report one of those positions. Hopper responded with supporting documents, claiming that he was not fired from either position and, if he failed to report a position, “it was an honest mistake.” OPM rejected Hopper’s assertions. SSA removed Hopper. While appeal was pending, the Merit System Protection Board issued decisions that questioned whether an individual who meets the definition of “employee” and is separated under an OPM suitability action retains a right to appeal as an “adverse action.” At a hearing, OPM refused to participate. The ALJ mitigated OPM’s action to a reprimand. The Board upheld the decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Board erred in approaching the case as an adverse action appeal, rather than as a suitability action under OPM’s regulations. The Civil Service Reform Act does not exempt suitability removals from Board jurisdiction. View "Archuleta v. Hopper" on Justia Law

Under 5 U.S.C. 7521, an agency may furlough an administrative law judge (ALJ) for 30 days or less “only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board” in a formal adjudication. The Board determined that the Department of Labor had good cause to furlough its ALJs for a particular length of time in 2013. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The challenged furlough, part of a program of furloughs throughout the Department and throughout the federal government, was the result of a neutral, reasonable, statute-based determination about how to implement a government-wide budget sequester. The spending limits were imposed under the Budget Control Act of 2011, 125 Stat. 240, 241–46, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, 126 Stat. 2313, 2370, which amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 2 U.S.C. 901. View "Berlin v. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

IRIS owns the 506 patent, titled “Method of Making an Improved Security Identification Document Including Contactless Communication Insert Unit.” The patent discloses methods for making a secure identification document containing an embedded computer chip that stores biographical or biometric data. Japan Airlines Corporation (JAL) examines passports according to the Enhanced Border Security Act, 8 U.S.C. 1221, the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 19 C.F.R. 122.75a(d), and international treaties. According to IRIS, some of these passports are made using the methods claimed in the 506 patent. IRIS sued, alleging that JAL infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(g) by “using . . . electronic passports in the processing and/or boarding of passengers . . . at . . . JAL services passenger check-in facilities throughout the United States.” JAL argued that federal laws requiring the examination of passports conflict with the patent laws and therefore exempt JAL from infringement liability and that IRIS’s exclusive remedy was an action against the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). The district court agreed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that JAL’s allegedly infringing acts are carried out “for the United States” under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a). View "IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp." on Justia Law

Wrocklage was a Customs and Border Patrol Officer for 12 years. While screening travelers at Sault Sainte Marie, Wrocklage was the first to screen the Millers, who declared that they were carrying “fruits and vegetables.” At a secondary inspection point, Officer Hendricks issued a $300 fine to the Millers for failing to declare lemons and seeds. Wrocklage and LaLonde, contacted their supervisor, Price, challenging the propriety of the fine. Wrocklage took home a copy of the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) report, which included Miller’s social security number, birth date, address, and license plate number. In an email to the Joint Intake Center, Wrocklage reported that he believed the Millers had been wrongly charged. Wrocklage attached the TECS report and copied Berglund, an employee in Senator Levin’s office. Within hours, Wrocklage realized that the TECS report had been attached, contacted Berglund, and, in response to his request, Berglund deleted the emails before opening the report. Wrocklage immediately self-reported to DHS, which determined that the report had been printed by LaLonde. Wrocklage stated that he “d[id] not recall” where he obtained the report. Wrocklage and LaLonde explained that they both printed copies and jointly presented copies to Price, so it was possible that the copies were switched. DHS removed Wrocklage from his position for improper possession of TECS information, unauthorized disclosures of TECS information, and lack of candor during the investigation. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the charges of unauthorized disclosure and lack of candor not supported by substantial evidence. View "Wrocklage v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

In a 2011 memorandum, the Secretary of the Navy explained that the Navy would be “challenged to reduce enlisted manning to meet future planned end strength controls due to record high retention in the current economic environment.” To address these concerns and to “optimize the quality” of the Navy, the Secretary initiated an Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) to identify 3,000 sailors for separation. The Navy notified all personnel, outlined a timeline, and identified particular pay grades and occupational classifications or specialties that would be subject to review. Sailors were informed that if their job rating was over-manned and slated for review, they could apply for conversion to an undermanned rating that would not be subject to review. The Navy also published the quotas for each overmanned rating that would be subject to the ERB to give the sailors information about competition among the different ratings and to enable them to make informed decisions about their careers. The ERB selected 2,946 sailors for honorable discharge. A putative class of about 300 of those discharged challenged their dismissal and sought back pay. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the merit-based claims as nonjusticiable and denied remaining claims on the administrative record. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Anderson v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission indicted Stanford for operating a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme. The government seized most of his assets rendering him an indigent defendant. Court-appointed counsel obtained authorization for legal services under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e), and employed Marcum for forensic accounting and litigation support, with an estimated budget of $4.5 million. The district court approved the budget, but Marcum did not obtain the Fifth Circuit's approval, as required by the CJA. Marcum’s work far exceeded the budget. Marcum received payment for work performed in June- August 2011,then submitted vouchers for work performed in September-November totaling $845,588.48. The district court certified only the September and October vouchers. Marcum attempted to resign from the case. Chief Judge Jones of the Fifth Circuit issued a Service Provider Continuity and Payment Order, authorizing payment of $205,000 for the September and October vouchers and ordered Marcum to continue working because “[i]t would be neither feasible nor economical to obtain a replacement.” Under threat of contempt sanctions, Marcum continued to work through the end of trial and claims unpaid fees of $1.2 million. Marcum filed an emergency motion for reconsideration, an emergency application for a stay before the U.S. Supreme Court, an emergency motion for a stay or a petition for writ of mandamus before the Fifth Circuit, and a petition for mandamus to the Supreme Court. All were denied. Marcum sued the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Because the CJA provides its own remedial scheme, Marcum cannot collaterally attack the Fifth Circuit’s determination of Marcum’s fee awards under the Tucker Act. View "Marcum LLP v. United States" on Justia Law

Darlene Devlin had been married for more than 40 years when her husband died, then a civilian federal employee for nearly six years, entitling Darlene to Basic Employee Death Benefits (BEDB), 5 U.S.C. 8442(b)(1)(A), 8466(b). However, Darlene died before she could sign or file an application for BEDB. Her son, Devlin, completed, signed, and filed an application for BEDB on her behalf. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied the application, concluding that Darlene was not entitled to BEDB because she failed to submit an application for those benefits before her death. Devlin argued that his appointment as a co-administrator of his mother’s estate permitted him to sign and file the application for BEDB on her behalf. The e Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed the denial. View "Devlin v. Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ) owned several patents relating to network scanner systems. Through subsidiary licensees, MPHJ wrote to various business and non-profit organizations operating in Vermont, requesting the recipient to confirm it was not infringing MPHJ’s patents or, alternatively, to purchase a license. If there was no response, a Texas law firm sent follow-up correspondence stating that an infringement suit would be filed. The State of Vermont filed suit against MPHJ in Vermont state court alleging MPHJ engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, stating that the letters contained threatening, false, and misleading statements. MPHJ removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, asserting federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The State moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MPHJ opposed the State’s motion to remand, and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion for sanctions. Finding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant MPHJ its requested relief, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and appeal. View "Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments" on Justia Law

Johnson served in the U.S. Army, 1970-197171. Years after leaving the service, he filed a claim for increased disability ratings for his service-connected disabilities, including rheumatic heart disease (then rated 10% disabling), and degenerative changes of the right and left knees (each knee rated 10% disabling). A VA regional office (RO) denied the claims, finding that he was not entitled to a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed and denied his claim for extra-schedular consideration of the combined impact of his service-connected rheumatic heart disease and right knee disability under 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1). The Veterans Court affirmed, finding the CFR language ambiguous and deferring to the VA’s interpretation. The Federal Circuit reversed, citing plain language. Section 3.321(b)(1) entitles a veteran to consideration for referral for extraschedular evaluation based on an individual disability not adequately captured by the schedular evaluations; it also entitles a veteran to consideration for referral for extra-schedular evaluation based on multiple disabilities, the combined effect of which is exceptional and not captured by scheduler evaluations.View "Johnson v. McDonald" on Justia Law